DETAILED ACTION
Reissue
For reissue applications filed before September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the law and rules in effect on September 15, 2012. Where specifically designated, these are “pre-AIA ” provisions.
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 30 April 2024 has been considered by the Examiner.
Status of the Claims
Original patent claims 1-15 are cancelled. New claims 16-35 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 18 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 30 each recite the limitation “the layers are separated”. There is insufficient written description support for this limitation in the specification of the ‘205 Patent. It is noted that the only use of the term “separate” or variations thereof in the ‘205 Patent is at col. 4 lines 38-40 which recites “The emission layer 33 can be separately formed for each pixel so that pixels emitting red light, green light, and blue light can be included in one unit pixel”. This disclosure indicates that the emission layers may be formed separately, but it does not specifically disclose that the emission layers are separated in the unit pixel. Additionally, the figures of the ‘205 Patent do not reasonably disclose a unit pixel comprising a plurality of emission layers that are separated. As such, claims 18 and 30 do not comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Appropriate action is required.
Claims 16-27 and 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 16 recites “a plurality of interconnection lines connected to a corner portion of the unit pixel” which indicates that a plurality of interconnection lines are connected to a single corner portion of the unit pixel. Subsequently, claim 16 recites “wherein the unit pixel has at least four corners, wherein the interconnection lines are respectively connected to the four corners” which indicates that the interconnection lines are connected to at least four corners of a unit pixel. From these recitations, it is unclear whether each of the at least four corners of the unit pixel are connected to a plurality of interconnection lines or if each of the plurality of interconnection lines are connected to each of the corners of the unit pixel. The specification of the ‘205 Patent does not provide any clarity regarding this issue. As such, claim 16 is indefinite. Claims 17-27 are rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of claim 16. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 32 recites “wherein the interconnection lines are respectively connected to the four corners”. Claim 28 from which claim 32 depends recites “a plurality of interconnection lines connected to a corner of the unit pixel”. As such, claim 32 is indefinite for the same reason described above when addressing claim 16. Claim 34 is rejected for inheriting the indefiniteness of claim 32. Appropriate action is required.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "of the unit pixel of the square shape" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no prior recitation of a unit pixel of the square shape in claim 34 or in any of claims that claim 34 depends from. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 28-31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Afentakis, US 2016/0066408 (“Afentakis”) in view of Park, US 2005/0140275 (“Park”). The Cambridge Dictionary (“Cambridge Dictionary”) is relied upon as an evidentiary reference for claim 28 (copy provided herewith).
PNG
media_image1.png
760
1152
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 28, Afentakis discloses an LED display apparatus comprising an array of LED elements over a flexible substrate [abstract, 0002, 0010, 0023-0025, 0030, 0031, Fig. 5, claims 1 & 15]. The disclosed LED elements correspond to the claimed unit pixel over the substrate.
Annotated Figure 5 of Afenakis illustrating the disclosed array of unit pixels
Cambridge Dictionary is serves as objective evidence that the word “flexible” is synonymous with the word “stretchable” (page 1). As such, the flexible substrate taught by Afentakis corresponds to the claimed stretchable substrate.
Each pixel in the array of unit pixels comprises a corner which is connected to a first and second conductive trace (i.e., connected to a first and second interconnection line) [0023-0025, 0030, Fig. 5] which correspond to the plurality of interconnection lines connected to a corner of the pixel. Afentakis teaches that the conductive lines have a serpentine pattern with a plurality of partial-loops which mitigate stress/strain on the lines when the substrate is flexed [0010, 0023-0025, Fig. 5]. Because the conductive lines comprise a serpentine pattern with a plurality of partial-loops which mitigate stress/stress on the lines during flexing of the substrate, the conductive lines are reasonably interpreted as being movable during stretching as claimed.
Afentakis further teaches that the partial-loops in the conductive lines mitigate against the formation of cracks when the substrate is flexed [0020]. As such, the partial-loops are reasonably interpreted as being bent portions configured to be straighten (at least to a degree) when the substrate is flexed (i.e., stretched) as claimed.
Afentakis is silent regarding the pixels comprising a plurality of emission layers and a conversion layer over the unit pixel.
Park discloses an LED display device comprising an array of LED elements (i.e., unit pixels) disposed on a substrate wherein the device is capable of obtaining high color purity [abstract, 0014, 0015, 0026-0040, Figs. 2-4]. Park teaches an LED element comprising an organic EL layer (500) which is covered by a color conversion layer (132a, 132b, 132c) [0025-0033, Figs. 2 & 3]. The organic EL layer may (500) be formed from a stack of layers comprising a blue (514), green (524), and red (534) emission layer.
PNG
media_image2.png
466
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
423
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 (left) and Figure 4 (right) of Park illustrating the disclosed
LED element and organic EL layer thereof.
Afentakis and Park are both directed towards display devices comprising an array of LED elements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was effectively filed to have utilized the LED element disclosed by Park as the LED elements in the display device of Afentakis with the expectation of providing high color purity. The LED elements in the resulting display device would have a comprised red, green, and blue emission layers which would have corresponded to the claimed plurality of emission layers configured to respectively emit light. The LED elements would have further comprised a color conversion layer disposed over the emission layers which would have corresponded to claimed conversion layer over the unit pixel and converting the emitted light into a predetermined color.
Regarding claim 29, Park teaches that the EL layer (500) emits white light [0035, Fig. 3].
Regarding claim 30, Park teaches that the blue (514), green (524), and red (534) emission layers are separated from each other by additional layers [0037, Fig. 4].
Regarding claim 31, the stack of layers comprising a blue (514), green (524), and red (534) emission layer taught by Park would have corresponded to the claimed plurality of emission layers.
Regarding claim 33, Afentakis teaches a unit pixel having a square shape [Fig. 5].
Regarding claim 35, as can be seen in Fig. 5 of Afentakis, the conductive traces (i.e., the interconnection lines) have a substantially zigzag shape as claimed.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 16 and 20-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 7-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,050,093 (“the ‘093 Patent) in view of Park, US 2005/0140275 (“Park”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are the same inventive concept obviating the instant claims.
All of the limitations of instantly pending claim 16 are met by claim 1 of the ‘093 Patent with the exception of the presence of a conversion layer over the unit pixel. However, Park discloses a LED display device comprising an array of LED elements (i.e., unit pixels) disposed on a substrate wherein the device is capable of obtaining high color purity [abstract, 0014, 0015, 0026-0040, Figs. 2-4]. Park teaches an LED element comprising an organic EL layer (500) which are covered by a color conversion layer wherein the conversion layer converts white light into three primary colors, red, green, and blue (132a, 132b, 132c) [abstract]. In light of the teachings of Park it is apparent that the inclusion of a conversion layer over the unit pixel of the ‘093 Patent is merely an obvious variant of the disclosed invention.
The limitations recited in instantly pending claims 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 are respectively met by claims 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the ‘093 Patent.
Duty to Disclose
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior art or concurrent proceeding in which U.S. Patent No. 9,698,205 is or was involved. The proceedings would include any trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, interferences, reissues, reexaminations, supplemental examination, and litigations. Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligations under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is material to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue application.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01, and 1442.04.
Conclusion
Claims 16-35 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEE E SANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30AM to 7:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Patricia Engle can be reached at 571-272-6600. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEE E SANDERSON/ Reexamination Specialist, Art Unit 3991
Conferees:
/ELIZABETH L MCKANE/Specialist, Art Unit 3991
/Patricia L Engle/SPRS, Art Unit 3991